Moments ago, in a 4 to 3 vote, the Abilene City Council went against the tide and voted NO on joining an ill-fated lawsuit that will gut the Texas Open Meetings Act.
Not because they don't have any concerns about being accused of unintentionally violated the law - they clearly do. Instead, it was because they saw through the smokescreen being spread across Texas and correctly understand that an expected lawsuit being pushed by the City of Alpine and Texas Municipal League in Austin won't help them. Instead, they saw it for what it is: a legal attempt to strip the teeth out of the law by removing criminal penalties, including possible jail time.
Originally the item was scheduled for a vote without discussion. But after I contacted Abilene's City Attorney, Dan Santee, and urged him to have it re-posted for public comment he did so.
Santee also correctly pointed out to council members that they "didn't have to join the lawsuit" like three small cities have done but added that at the Texas Municipal League this is a "big topic of discussion."
Santee also said, "This issue is important enough that Keith Elkins, executive director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, came all the way to Abilene" to speak out against the lawsuit.
Mr. Santee of course is right on both points.
This issue should be of concern to all Texans. If you know anything about the Sharpstown Stock-Fraud Scandal of the early 1970's you understand why criminal sanctions are important. If you don't, it would be worth a quick "google" search to discover what can happen when politicians have nothing to fear when they conduct the people's business in private.
It's also questionable why a few Texas cities and their lobbyists all of a sudden want to remove part of the legal language that bans "a quorum of members of a governmental body from discussing business in secret." As it stands now, if they do and they get caught, the violation is an unclassified misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $500.
Proponents of the lawsuit contend this language — which has been on the books for 36 years with its jail and fine provisions — somehow infringes on, or prevents, council members from being able to talk to other council members outside of public meetings, to reporters or even to their own constituents. What? Since when?
Thank goodness the Abilene City Council didn't buy this load of you-know-what, and on behalf of FOIFT I was glad to visit their city and urge them to stand strong against other rogue cities, who do.
And for any other Texas cities sitting on the fence on this issue - if you can't understand what conducting public business in public view means - God help you as you consider more pressing issues in your area.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
"Keep Information Confidential Until a Final Decision Is Rendered?"
Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley is now the new Chairman of the Texas Forensic Science Commission. He was appointed by Governor Rick Perry. Since then, Bradley has promised a "disciplined, scientific approach" as the agency continues examining evidence that resulted in the 2004 death penalty arson conviction of a man from Corsicana named Cameron Todd Willingham. Unfortunately, Bradley has also indicated he has no intention of the TFSC conducting its business in the open - in public.
In a Dallas Morning News article, Bradley says "The commission does not decide whether persons are guilty or innocent of criminal offenses." On that point, the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas certainly agrees.
However, FOIFT also feels strongly that the agency can most definitely help clarify a troubling question. Whether Willingham may have been executed wrongly and if so, what safeguards should be put into place to prevent it from happening again? FOIFT also believes this business, the people's business, should be conducted openly and in plain view of the public. How? By continuing to investigate new information that has come to light such as the Beyler report, a professional forensic review sought by the agency from one of the top arson expert's. Dr. Craig Beyler concluded essentially that the evidence did not support the crime.
That report, however, was never presented to the TFSC because just two days before he was scheduled to present his findings "Governor Perry replaced four of the nine commission members, including the Chairman."
Now, the Governor's new chairman is pushing for additional ways to keep the TFSC's business conducted in the dark, including "...new requirements to keep information confidential until a final decision is rendered." John Bradley has also asked the Attorney General for advice on how to better protect against "interference and improper outside influences."
The tough-on-crime prosecutor points out the commission was created four years ago "to determine only whether there was negligence or misconduct by an accredited laboratory" conducting the forensic evidence analysis.
In other words, it's okay for tax money to be used for second-guessing crime labs but not for more closely examining whether an innocent man was put to death for a crime arson experts now say he couldn't have committed. Really? Where's the Justice in that Mr. Bradley?
In a Dallas Morning News article, Bradley says "The commission does not decide whether persons are guilty or innocent of criminal offenses." On that point, the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas certainly agrees.
However, FOIFT also feels strongly that the agency can most definitely help clarify a troubling question. Whether Willingham may have been executed wrongly and if so, what safeguards should be put into place to prevent it from happening again? FOIFT also believes this business, the people's business, should be conducted openly and in plain view of the public. How? By continuing to investigate new information that has come to light such as the Beyler report, a professional forensic review sought by the agency from one of the top arson expert's. Dr. Craig Beyler concluded essentially that the evidence did not support the crime.
That report, however, was never presented to the TFSC because just two days before he was scheduled to present his findings "Governor Perry replaced four of the nine commission members, including the Chairman."
Now, the Governor's new chairman is pushing for additional ways to keep the TFSC's business conducted in the dark, including "...new requirements to keep information confidential until a final decision is rendered." John Bradley has also asked the Attorney General for advice on how to better protect against "interference and improper outside influences."
The tough-on-crime prosecutor points out the commission was created four years ago "to determine only whether there was negligence or misconduct by an accredited laboratory" conducting the forensic evidence analysis.
In other words, it's okay for tax money to be used for second-guessing crime labs but not for more closely examining whether an innocent man was put to death for a crime arson experts now say he couldn't have committed. Really? Where's the Justice in that Mr. Bradley?
Monday, October 26, 2009
Governor Perry Wants the Todd Willingham Case to Go Away - But Should It ?
For several weeks Governor Rick Perry has been at the center of a controversy that just keeps getting uglier. Plenty of blame can be placed directly on the Governor himself.
It involves a Death Penalty case where arson testimony was used to help convict a man, named Todd Willingham, of setting his home on fire and killing his children inside. Without question it was a gruesome situation - but a new review of the evidence now indicates it may not have been arson . That's where the facts in this case begin to get fuzzy even though Governor Perry confidently claims Willingham was "...a monster who deserved to die."
More than a half dozen forensic experts disagree, however, at least from the standpoint of whether the evidence proves Willingham was an "arsonist" who intentionally set the fire.
Why does it matter? Simple. No arson = No crime.
In other words, the State of Texas under Governor Perry's watch may have executed an innocent man. To make sure that didn't happen the state's Forensic Science Commission conducted an investigation which included hiring arson expert Craig Beylar. Beylar, like six other fire experts before him, concluded that Willingham could not have set the fire, as alleged.
Ironically, it was almost an identical case to that of Ernest Willis who was also on death row for an arson related murder at the very same time. But Willis had access to money while inmate Willingham did not. So, after an estimated $12 million in legal fees and 5 years of court battles Willis was set free while Willingham put to death.
His lawyers tried to delay his execution by making a last minute plea to the Governor just 88 minutes before Willingham was scheduled to die. That much we do know. What we don't know, however, is what - if anything - the Governor was told about the new evidence or at what time he received his briefing.
The Governor was reportedly out of town at the time and so far has refused to release any "records" or "briefing papers" that might help fill in the gaps. The state's Forensic Science Commission's investigation was also halted because Perry replaced several members before it was ever completed.
Remember, this IS NOT an argument for or against the death penalty. It is simply a plea to encourage Governor Perry to release ALL public records that will show what was or was not done before Texas' deadly cocktail of chemicals was ever administered.
So, why won't he release them? Governor Perry argues the documents are exempt from public disclosure because he says they fall within the "attorney-client priviledge."
Former Death Row Inmate Ernest Willis, however, has a different explanation. In an exclusive interview with Texas Monthly's Michael Hall, Willis says Governor Perry is "...afraid they killed an innocent man on his watch..." and says the Governor "...should own up to it and say, ' hey we made a mistake.'" Willis also says there's no doubt in his mind Willingham was innocent of the arson and says he knows of five other inmates still on death row who he believes are also wrongfully convicted. Now a free man himself, escaping the death chamber with expert arson testimony just five years ago, Willis is now calling for an execution moratorium in Texas.
Oh yea, the Governor's General Counsel was also cleared of an arson indictment - based on testimony - from after-the-fact arson investigation experts.
It involves a Death Penalty case where arson testimony was used to help convict a man, named Todd Willingham, of setting his home on fire and killing his children inside. Without question it was a gruesome situation - but a new review of the evidence now indicates it may not have been arson . That's where the facts in this case begin to get fuzzy even though Governor Perry confidently claims Willingham was "...a monster who deserved to die."
More than a half dozen forensic experts disagree, however, at least from the standpoint of whether the evidence proves Willingham was an "arsonist" who intentionally set the fire.
Why does it matter? Simple. No arson = No crime.
In other words, the State of Texas under Governor Perry's watch may have executed an innocent man. To make sure that didn't happen the state's Forensic Science Commission conducted an investigation which included hiring arson expert Craig Beylar. Beylar, like six other fire experts before him, concluded that Willingham could not have set the fire, as alleged.
Ironically, it was almost an identical case to that of Ernest Willis who was also on death row for an arson related murder at the very same time. But Willis had access to money while inmate Willingham did not. So, after an estimated $12 million in legal fees and 5 years of court battles Willis was set free while Willingham put to death.
His lawyers tried to delay his execution by making a last minute plea to the Governor just 88 minutes before Willingham was scheduled to die. That much we do know. What we don't know, however, is what - if anything - the Governor was told about the new evidence or at what time he received his briefing.
The Governor was reportedly out of town at the time and so far has refused to release any "records" or "briefing papers" that might help fill in the gaps. The state's Forensic Science Commission's investigation was also halted because Perry replaced several members before it was ever completed.
Remember, this IS NOT an argument for or against the death penalty. It is simply a plea to encourage Governor Perry to release ALL public records that will show what was or was not done before Texas' deadly cocktail of chemicals was ever administered.
So, why won't he release them? Governor Perry argues the documents are exempt from public disclosure because he says they fall within the "attorney-client priviledge."
Former Death Row Inmate Ernest Willis, however, has a different explanation. In an exclusive interview with Texas Monthly's Michael Hall, Willis says Governor Perry is "...afraid they killed an innocent man on his watch..." and says the Governor "...should own up to it and say, ' hey we made a mistake.'" Willis also says there's no doubt in his mind Willingham was innocent of the arson and says he knows of five other inmates still on death row who he believes are also wrongfully convicted. Now a free man himself, escaping the death chamber with expert arson testimony just five years ago, Willis is now calling for an execution moratorium in Texas.
Oh yea, the Governor's General Counsel was also cleared of an arson indictment - based on testimony - from after-the-fact arson investigation experts.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Who and What Will Be the Future of News ?
Recently I attended a lecture on the Austin campus of the University of Texas entitled "The Future of News: The Crisis in American Journalism and Why People Should Care." It was the latest effort to "...bring notable journalists to the University of Texas campus..." as part of the Mary Alice Davis distinguished lecture series "...to discuss the role of journalism in a democratic society and to address issues of press freedom, credibility, and ethics." The timing for such a topic was timely with all the hand-wringing and water cooler prognostications about whether newspapers can survive? Or, even if journalists or the news as we know it will exist when today's college students get ready to enter the business of the Fourth Estate.
Legendary newsman, and native Texan, Dan Rather was selected to deliver this heady lecture to a packed house of more than 700 students, professors and special guests inside the Texas Union Ballroom. Rather didn't disappoint. Reflecting on his more than 60 years as a journalist, he referred to the press (news media) as “the red beating heart of freedom and democracy.” He also told the crowd, “When we speak of the future of journalism, let us fully understand that quality journalism of integrity is currently in decline and in peril.” Why, according to Rather? " Corporatization, politicization and trivialization."
I invite these future journalists, and others across this great state to carry the torch of this noble profession and The Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas is here to assist them in "getting the job done."
Legendary newsman, and native Texan, Dan Rather was selected to deliver this heady lecture to a packed house of more than 700 students, professors and special guests inside the Texas Union Ballroom. Rather didn't disappoint. Reflecting on his more than 60 years as a journalist, he referred to the press (news media) as “the red beating heart of freedom and democracy.” He also told the crowd, “When we speak of the future of journalism, let us fully understand that quality journalism of integrity is currently in decline and in peril.” Why, according to Rather? " Corporatization, politicization and trivialization."
According to Rather, " Good journalism starts with an owner or publisher who has guts..." although he added "...most publications and broadcasters have fallen prey to mergers for the last quarter of a century.
" Good journalism costs money," Rather said. And he added, "we're in a race to the bottom - with four and no more than 6 companies that currently own the majority of news distribution outlets."
It was a sobering examination of today's climate which Rather eloquently placed in historical context: "...“It was not for nothing that this nation’s founding fathers placed freedom of the press right alongside freedom of speech and freedom of religion in the very First Amendment of the Constitution up at the top of the Bill of Rights.”
In closing, the 77 year old journalist said "I'm not sure news can survive without the active involvement of the news consumer." And he challenged all of us to "...let the ownership know that you demand quality news reporting" not just sit back and settle for the easiest pictures or sound bites of the day.
Verification, accuracy and the validation of official documents, however, was glossed over if even mentioned at all. And yet it was the use of documents questioning President George W. Bush's military service in the Texas National Guard that had tarnished Rather's lengthy career. He retired following an ensuring controversy debating the documents veracity.
Yes, as UT's School of Journalism director Tracy Dahlby put it, “Rather has spent six decades getting the job done, telling people things they need to know about their world they otherwise wouldn’t. He’s done it with courage, style, wit and occasionally the controversy that comes with being a journalist.”
As Rather spoke, I glanced around the room at the crowd. So many young faces attentively listening much the same way I would have as a student journalist myself. And here I was, more than thirty years later, sitting alongside them for today's debate involving "The Crisis in American Journalism and Why People Should Care."I invite these future journalists, and others across this great state to carry the torch of this noble profession and The Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas is here to assist them in "getting the job done."
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Are Taxpayers Really Getting Their Money's Worth?
The headline in the Austin American-Statesman (AAS) on this day is clear: " Austin School District Sues to Keep Search Documents Secret." http://tinyurl.com/n7fgju
A governmental body spending taxpayers money, hiring a law firm that charges on average between $250 and $295 an hour, to withhold records from public inspection. Why? This is a draft statement about the issue from AISD. http://tinyurl.com/npwdtk I'll let you be the judge whether they make a legitimate argument to keep the governmental agency's business in "the dark" while we all wait to see how the Texas Attorney General's Office will decide . But this is what the AG's office has had to say on the matter so far. http://tinyurl.com/n8h5xp
By contrast, however, in the very same newspaper on the very same day is a far different story involving the same school district. The outgoing Superintendant will receive more than $215,000 for unusused vacation time - at a time when the district has announced a hiring freeze! http://tinyurl.com/m2osp9 How do taxpayers know? Because when AAS reporters requested the information under the Texas Public Information Act - the law in Texas that governs the release of public information - AISD followed the law and complied. Maybe it's time taxpayers let AISD know enough is enough!
A governmental body spending taxpayers money, hiring a law firm that charges on average between $250 and $295 an hour, to withhold records from public inspection. Why? This is a draft statement about the issue from AISD. http://tinyurl.com/npwdtk I'll let you be the judge whether they make a legitimate argument to keep the governmental agency's business in "the dark" while we all wait to see how the Texas Attorney General's Office will decide . But this is what the AG's office has had to say on the matter so far. http://tinyurl.com/n8h5xp
By contrast, however, in the very same newspaper on the very same day is a far different story involving the same school district. The outgoing Superintendant will receive more than $215,000 for unusused vacation time - at a time when the district has announced a hiring freeze! http://tinyurl.com/m2osp9 How do taxpayers know? Because when AAS reporters requested the information under the Texas Public Information Act - the law in Texas that governs the release of public information - AISD followed the law and complied. Maybe it's time taxpayers let AISD know enough is enough!
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Doing the Right Thing - In Texas
Today, the Texas Senate did the right thing. State Senators put aside their partisan differences and unanimously approved legislation known as the Free Flow of Information Act. It was the third legislative session passage of similar legislation has been attempted. Houston Democrat Rodney Ellis and Lubbock Republican Robert Duncan led the charge despite an attempt by Republican Tommy Williams of The Woodlands to add an amendment to the bill that would require Texas newspapers print a "disclaimer" when reporting stories using "whistle-blowers" or confidential sources. It was clearly an infringement on Freedom of the Press in violation of 1st Amendment protections. In response, Senator Duncan told his colleagues, "The media is a checks and balances on everybody, including you and me." Duncan also added, "It is wrong for the Texas legislature by law to compel" news organizations to do anything. Of course, he was right. Unsuccessfully, Senator Williams argued, "I don't see anything wrong with having journalists verify their story." The exchange was a brief yet pivotal moment in the floor debate. Williams realized he was fighting a losing battle after Duncan called his attempt "unprecedented" and "unconstitutional." Then a funny thing happened. Senator Williams did the right thing, announcing he was withdrawing his amendment and he voted in favor of the bill - along with every single one of his colleagues - approving the Free Flow of Information Act unanimously 31 - 0. House members will now have to approve some minor changes to the bill before it heads to the Governor's desk. Let's hope Texas continues doing the right thing this third time around.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
CITIZENS INVOLVEMENT TAKES CENTER-STAGE IN CANTON, TEXAS
On April 17, more than five-dozen citizens and city officials spent a Friday evening arming themselves with professional education and advice about Texas’ Open Meetings and Public Information laws at a “Freedom of Information Forum” held in Canton, Texas, located about 53 miles east of Dallas.
Juan Elizondo, the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas’ (FOIFT) Treasurer and member of the Board of Directors and Adrian Rodriguez who works for the Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P. law firm where FOIFT Past-President and member of FOIFT’s Advisory Council Thomas Leatherbury is a partner attended the public event held at the Canton High School. Rodriguez presented a slide presentation about Texas’ open government laws and Elizondo provided additional information about their practical applications for the people of Canton along with the benefits of advocacy organizations such as FOIFT.
According to co-organizer Kay Murphree, “We were extremely happy with our event, even as we wished for a bigger turn out.” Murphree also said, "We" are a loose group of civic minded citizens…” who do not “…have a name or a budget, our strength seems to come from our diversity and commitment to have better government in Canton answering to the citizens for their decisions and actions. We are professionals and non-professionals (but no lawyers), parents, singles, workers and retirees, and several retired career military people. We seem to have only one unwritten rule, we don't talk politics - we talk only issues. Our main interest is to have an open, transparent, truthful government and make sure that every penny of our tax is used wisely.”
Two people visiting from Grand Saline said, that “…they were wanting to learn how to get info from their city government” as they felt it was not being open and transparent to them; they also commented that “…this meeting was just what they needed and (said they) had come, at this time, as an answer to a prayer.”
Event co-organizer Ron Perkins says, “Mr. Rodriquez, was extremely knowledgeable and provided an excellent informative platform for this presentation. The subject matters were enhanced with the power point presentation and the attorney general information that was passed out to all attendees. Mr. Elizondo concluded the open discussion and well pressed the final comments into a concise and understandable structure that appears to have added value to this meeting. During the question and answer portion, our mayor inquired into a specific subject of 'third party' document retention and if that storage was subject to the '''Freedom of Information Act''. “With the city attorney present, it was refreshing to hear the answer so forthright presented by Mr. Rodriquez…”
Juan Elizondo, the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas’ (FOIFT) Treasurer and member of the Board of Directors and Adrian Rodriguez who works for the Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P. law firm where FOIFT Past-President and member of FOIFT’s Advisory Council Thomas Leatherbury is a partner attended the public event held at the Canton High School. Rodriguez presented a slide presentation about Texas’ open government laws and Elizondo provided additional information about their practical applications for the people of Canton along with the benefits of advocacy organizations such as FOIFT.
According to co-organizer Kay Murphree, “We were extremely happy with our event, even as we wished for a bigger turn out.” Murphree also said, "We" are a loose group of civic minded citizens…” who do not “…have a name or a budget, our strength seems to come from our diversity and commitment to have better government in Canton answering to the citizens for their decisions and actions. We are professionals and non-professionals (but no lawyers), parents, singles, workers and retirees, and several retired career military people. We seem to have only one unwritten rule, we don't talk politics - we talk only issues. Our main interest is to have an open, transparent, truthful government and make sure that every penny of our tax is used wisely.”
Two people visiting from Grand Saline said, that “…they were wanting to learn how to get info from their city government” as they felt it was not being open and transparent to them; they also commented that “…this meeting was just what they needed and (said they) had come, at this time, as an answer to a prayer.”
Event co-organizer Ron Perkins says, “Mr. Rodriquez, was extremely knowledgeable and provided an excellent informative platform for this presentation. The subject matters were enhanced with the power point presentation and the attorney general information that was passed out to all attendees. Mr. Elizondo concluded the open discussion and well pressed the final comments into a concise and understandable structure that appears to have added value to this meeting. During the question and answer portion, our mayor inquired into a specific subject of 'third party' document retention and if that storage was subject to the '''Freedom of Information Act''. “With the city attorney present, it was refreshing to hear the answer so forthright presented by Mr. Rodriquez…”
Friday, April 3, 2009
Unanimous Vote for Free Flow of Information Act
It's often said, "...the third times a charm..." and FOIFT is hopeful that will indeed be the case with this current legislative session. Earlier this week, members of the Texas House of Representatives unanimously voted 146 - 0, approving a reporter's shield bill (H.B. 670) that provides journalists a qualified privilege from being compelled to disclose confidential sources and reporting material. This is the third legislative session passage of such a bill has been attempted. A companion bill in the Texas Senate, SB 915, also passed out of committee last week and both versions are very similar. FOIFT President Laura Prather was instrumental in helping negotiate compromise language between several media organizations and the state Prosecutor's Association.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Legislative Advocacy and Outreach
FOIFT President Laura Prather, also speaking on behalf of the Texas Daily Newspaper Association, the Texas Press Association and the Texas Association of Broadcasters, testified in favor of passage of compromise legislation known as the Free Flow of Information Act (SB 915, a companion bill for HB 670) which was left pending in Senate Committee. State Senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston), the bill's sponsor, told committee members "...the ability of the press to report the truth to the public sometimes requires the use of confidential sources..." and pointed out they currently do so without the ability to protect the identity of "whistle-blowers." Ellis also pointed out this legislation will "...allow journalists to report the truth...and allow the state to enforce justice." A similar bill was approved by the Texas Senate during the last legislative session on a vote of 27 to 4.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
FOIFT Helps Negotiate a Significant Victory for the Public
Today members of the Senate Committee on Transportation and Homeland Security approved an amended Committee substitute bill that is considered a major victory for the Public's Right to know. The Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas and the Texas Association of Broadcasters initially opposed legislation which would have effectively prevented public access to an estimated 3 million accident records involving Texas roadways. Without this information, it would be virtually impossible to perform independent data analysis of dangerous roadways, specific accident prone areas, poor roadway engineering, motor carrier repeat violators, etc. After a week of negotiations involving the FOIFT, TAB, bill sponsor Senator John Carona's (R-Dallas) staff and representatives of the Texas Department of Transportation - a negotiated compromise was reached late yesterday afternoon. The amended committee substitute was approved today on a vote of 8 - 0 and now moves to be the full Texas Senate for approval. This bill must also be voted out of the Texas house.As always, your continued support and donations are appreciated which make it possible for us to continue working for you!
Posted by Keith Elkins, Executive Director at 9:52 AM 0 comments
Posted by Keith Elkins, Executive Director at 9:52 AM 0 comments
Friday, March 20, 2009
FOIFT EDITORIAL: LAWMAKERS PROTECTING YOU – BY PROTECTING CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES
Friday, March 20, 2009
Should Texas reporters be forced to reveal their confidential sources? Before you answer, consider the consequences.While it may seem like a simple question, the ramifications of your answer are far-reaching and affect us all.Take for example two of the biggest statewide news stories of the last few years, the widespread physical and sexual abuse scandal within Texas Youth Commission facilities and hundreds of mobile telephones illegally smuggled inside Texas' 'Death Row'. Both stories initially saw the light of day because of anonymous tips provided by confidential sources or “whistle-blowers” to the news media – and because of brave reporters and their news organizations who chose to place the greater public interest over personal and professional risks, without legal protection.Unlike 36 other states that provide some type of protection, either a qualified or absolute privilege against forced disclosure, Texas does not have a free flow of information act for journalists’ sources. The only recourse journalists have to protect sources is their willingness to resist a subpoena and suffer the consequences. In some cases, those consequences can be jail. In other cases, there can be enormous financial exposure for the media company who employs the journalist.It is a risk journalists in Texas take every day. For example:• In recent years, one large market TV station with a full-time investigative unitreceived a subpoena almost once every 6-7 days.• Large market Texas newspapers typically receive 10-20 subpoenas a year.• A Dallas TV station received four subpoenas in one day.• The number of subpoenas served on smaller market Texas newspapers varies,but many report 2-3 subpoenas a year.If Texas already had a free flow of information act on the books one must wonder if a former or current employee of the Peanut Corporation of America's plant in Plainview would have stepped forward to point out the potentially deadly production of peanut products before that plant voluntarily ceased operations Feb. 23 (Nationwide, the company has been linked to a nationwide salmonella outbreak that sickened 600 people and reportedly killed nine others).We all deserve better and it's encouraging that a growing number of elected officials are listening and beginning to take action. This past week in Austin, without fanfare and with little public recognition, a group of elected State Representatives did the right thing: they voted to protect us. They did so by voting 7-1 to pass House Bill 670, known as the Free Flow of Information Act (FFOIA), out of the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee. We commend Chairman Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi, for his leadership on this issue of important public policy and applaud the other committee members who voted yes on the measure: Rep. Roberto Alonzo, D-Dallas; Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas; Rep. Will Hartnett-Dallas; Rep. David Leibowitz, D-San Antonio; Rep. Jerry Madden, R-Richardson; and Rep. Armando Martinez, D-Weslaco.It is an encouraging beginning of a multi-step process before any free flow of information act will ever land on the Governor's desk for approval. During the last legislative session, significant headway was made toward adopting a FFOIA in Texas. Legislation passed in both Senate and House committees unanimously, passed the Senate in a 27-4 floor vote and was poised to pass the Texas House when it was killed by a parliamentary point of order on the last day for Senate bills to be considered by the House on second reading. We can't allow this to happen again. The stakes are just too great.That’s because a Free Flow of Information Act isn’t about protecting the journalist – it’s about protecting the public. Without a law to allow whistleblowers to remain confidential the public will never learn of many scandals and outrageous abuses by government officials and corporate executives.Sources often will provide more information and act with more candor in notifying journalists of very real concerns about consumer safety, governmental abuse, etc., if they can be guaranteed anonymity. Without an assurance of anonymity, many conscientious citizens with evidence of wrongdoing would stay silent. They would rightly fear for their jobs, their reputations – even, in some cases, their safety.Passage of such a law benefits the public by increasing the free flow of information, improving protection from governmental abuse, and enhancing the health and welfare of the general public by allowing witnesses or others with knowledge of information of wrongdoing to speak to the public through the media without fear of reprisal.It isn’t a new concept nor is it disrespectful of law enforcement. The oldest U.S. free flow of information act dates back to 1898. Some of the most conservative, law and order states have such a statute on the books, such as Alabama, Georgia, Montana and Arizona. Ronald Reagan signed the law amending California’s Free Flow of Information statute in the 1960’s. Protecting the free flow of information ensures that wrongdoers will be exposed – and prosecuted.It’s time for Texas to become the 37th state to protect those individuals who are brave enough to come forward with information that benefits the public. They deserve it and so do you. A companion bill, Senate Bill 915, is pending before the Senate Jurisprudence Committee.Keith Elkins is the Executive Director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas.
Posted by Keith Elkins, Executive Director at 10:39 AM 0 comments
Should Texas reporters be forced to reveal their confidential sources? Before you answer, consider the consequences.While it may seem like a simple question, the ramifications of your answer are far-reaching and affect us all.Take for example two of the biggest statewide news stories of the last few years, the widespread physical and sexual abuse scandal within Texas Youth Commission facilities and hundreds of mobile telephones illegally smuggled inside Texas' 'Death Row'. Both stories initially saw the light of day because of anonymous tips provided by confidential sources or “whistle-blowers” to the news media – and because of brave reporters and their news organizations who chose to place the greater public interest over personal and professional risks, without legal protection.Unlike 36 other states that provide some type of protection, either a qualified or absolute privilege against forced disclosure, Texas does not have a free flow of information act for journalists’ sources. The only recourse journalists have to protect sources is their willingness to resist a subpoena and suffer the consequences. In some cases, those consequences can be jail. In other cases, there can be enormous financial exposure for the media company who employs the journalist.It is a risk journalists in Texas take every day. For example:• In recent years, one large market TV station with a full-time investigative unitreceived a subpoena almost once every 6-7 days.• Large market Texas newspapers typically receive 10-20 subpoenas a year.• A Dallas TV station received four subpoenas in one day.• The number of subpoenas served on smaller market Texas newspapers varies,but many report 2-3 subpoenas a year.If Texas already had a free flow of information act on the books one must wonder if a former or current employee of the Peanut Corporation of America's plant in Plainview would have stepped forward to point out the potentially deadly production of peanut products before that plant voluntarily ceased operations Feb. 23 (Nationwide, the company has been linked to a nationwide salmonella outbreak that sickened 600 people and reportedly killed nine others).We all deserve better and it's encouraging that a growing number of elected officials are listening and beginning to take action. This past week in Austin, without fanfare and with little public recognition, a group of elected State Representatives did the right thing: they voted to protect us. They did so by voting 7-1 to pass House Bill 670, known as the Free Flow of Information Act (FFOIA), out of the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee. We commend Chairman Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi, for his leadership on this issue of important public policy and applaud the other committee members who voted yes on the measure: Rep. Roberto Alonzo, D-Dallas; Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas; Rep. Will Hartnett-Dallas; Rep. David Leibowitz, D-San Antonio; Rep. Jerry Madden, R-Richardson; and Rep. Armando Martinez, D-Weslaco.It is an encouraging beginning of a multi-step process before any free flow of information act will ever land on the Governor's desk for approval. During the last legislative session, significant headway was made toward adopting a FFOIA in Texas. Legislation passed in both Senate and House committees unanimously, passed the Senate in a 27-4 floor vote and was poised to pass the Texas House when it was killed by a parliamentary point of order on the last day for Senate bills to be considered by the House on second reading. We can't allow this to happen again. The stakes are just too great.That’s because a Free Flow of Information Act isn’t about protecting the journalist – it’s about protecting the public. Without a law to allow whistleblowers to remain confidential the public will never learn of many scandals and outrageous abuses by government officials and corporate executives.Sources often will provide more information and act with more candor in notifying journalists of very real concerns about consumer safety, governmental abuse, etc., if they can be guaranteed anonymity. Without an assurance of anonymity, many conscientious citizens with evidence of wrongdoing would stay silent. They would rightly fear for their jobs, their reputations – even, in some cases, their safety.Passage of such a law benefits the public by increasing the free flow of information, improving protection from governmental abuse, and enhancing the health and welfare of the general public by allowing witnesses or others with knowledge of information of wrongdoing to speak to the public through the media without fear of reprisal.It isn’t a new concept nor is it disrespectful of law enforcement. The oldest U.S. free flow of information act dates back to 1898. Some of the most conservative, law and order states have such a statute on the books, such as Alabama, Georgia, Montana and Arizona. Ronald Reagan signed the law amending California’s Free Flow of Information statute in the 1960’s. Protecting the free flow of information ensures that wrongdoers will be exposed – and prosecuted.It’s time for Texas to become the 37th state to protect those individuals who are brave enough to come forward with information that benefits the public. They deserve it and so do you. A companion bill, Senate Bill 915, is pending before the Senate Jurisprudence Committee.Keith Elkins is the Executive Director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas.
Posted by Keith Elkins, Executive Director at 10:39 AM 0 comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
